What are the best books that debunk religion? I don't mean

There are none.

Depends which religion you want to debunk,

For Christianity, refer to the Bible
For Islam, the Quran
For Hinduism, the Vedas and Mahabharat

And so on

>>9717078
Sagan's one about the Demon Haunted World is pretty good, not religion specific though.

File: 1494758979616.jpg (90KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 600x800px

Right here

if you want to debunk religion, read some theology and criticize it within its own goalposts. Otherwise enjoy jerking around on r/atheism because you won't be able to meaningfully engage with anyone else on the subject

>>9717111
xp

>>9717078
you can't "debunk religion," you can only debunk religious claims that are amenable to empirical research, and then only limitedly so

>>9717390

To do so is to debunk religion-as-such however, depending on the case. And this because religion has historically made concrete empirical claims about reality which have been refuted by science. You say that inquiry can only do away with religion in a limited fashion; the supreme irony being that inquiry (science) has /limited religion itself/.

Sidestepping this is mere fancy.

>>9717378
As someone that enjoys learning about religion I think theology, at least the Abrhamic ones, more or less amounts to superstition. It's basically starting with your favorite presupsisitions and musing on them.

For instance the proposition that bible or Quran is historical accurate. That suffering is bad.

Another problem is that it relies on metaphysical assumptions about the mind and matter which are stuck in middle ages science. For instance the concept of the soul as distinct from the body instead of being a manifestation of the body (aka the fucking brain).

I have seen some good theology from people like Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. In general it seems that the only people to bother asking any hard questions were the heretics, while the celebrated figures were interested purely in circle jerking.

In short the idiots at /r-atheism/ are probably right to laugh at these guys. Not that they themself are very clever either.

>>9717407
You sound confused.

Practice debating religious fanatics that either ring your doorbell, approach you on the street or on campus. It depends on what religion they are, you could refute every farcical happening in the Bible, but a Muslim isn't going to give a shit. You have to have a wealth of general knowledge about each religion or sect you encounter because they always change their belief structure based on their own internalized justifications you have to pry out of them. You could argue that the idea only christians going to heaven is dumb because what about animals that show signs of intelligence or the people before Christ, but then they could say acceptance into heaven is based on deeds done, not by devotion, then you could point out how the entire structure of religion is about systematic indoctrination and a major goal of an institution is to get more people to participate. Then they'll come up with an excuse that they aren't part of a church but only follow the teachings of Christ.

And at that point you're arguing with a theist that gets to make up his own rules to everything. And you just fucking walk away. The problem is that those that do follow a structure aren't going to listen to logic. It's dumb. Don't argue with the religious. Use your time for something productive. It's the worst kind of social interaction.

The best way is to research what they have to say from a position that as close as humanly possible to belief, even though proper belief is of course the best.

Look for the following things:
- what the religion identifies as problems of the human condition (theodicies, original sin, three characterstics of samsara) and the proposed solutions
- history and claims of eternity
- postmodernity with its religious pluralism and the huge confusion it causes, where one day you're a Calvinist and the next an Arminian and the next a Greek Orthodox and...
- differences between clergy and laity
- relationships between scripture and theology and liturgy
- economic relationship with the sacred
- interfaith debates and beliefs about and understanding of other religions
- theology vs practical religious behavior

>>9717405
Science cannot limit religion; science can only limit itself. Science can only debunk claims reached by employing its own means, therefore it can only debunk itself.
>We have looked through our telescopes and there is no god in the sky. Then we've looked through our microscopes and dissected the human body and found no soul therein.
Oh no, wait till the pope hears about this. The poor old guy is going to be devastated.

>>9717454
damn...

>>9717086
>>9717111
>>9717405
>>>/reddit/

>>9717421
best answer in this thread

the others feel reddit because theyre about 'le science' disproving bible stories, but this answer actually deals with the question in a reasonable way